London - Contemporary Museum

Table of contents:

London - Contemporary Museum
London - Contemporary Museum

Video: London - Contemporary Museum

Video: London - Contemporary Museum
Video: Museums, Galleries and Contemporary Culture MA 2024, March
Anonim

The problem of the relationship between the old and the new in such a complex and complex issue as urban planning, where each decision is associated not only with the lives of millions of citizens, but also with millions and billions of investments, is becoming more and more urgent. And it seems that a common recipe for solving this issue has not yet been found: each city chooses its own path of development. Peter Murray, director of the independent center New London Architecture, which deals with the problems of architecture and urbanism in the British capital, in his interview with Archi.ru revealed the essence of the choice of London.

Last spring, the NLA organized an unprecedented exhibition "London's Growing Up!", Which presented a panorama of high-rise construction in the city (Archi.ru wrote about this). We had the opportunity to speak with Peter Murray about the results of the research done, about the problems identified and their possible solutions.

Archi.ru:

Historic views of London have always been an important brand for Britain. Today, this well-established look, known for centuries, is changing dramatically, which causes a lot of criticism. What do you think, on the basis of which main principle should be built a dialogue between the historical and modern layers of London?

Peter Murray:

- I think that in our time - the time of cultural globalization - it is important to find a way to preserve the character of the place. This character is formed from many components, including the character of the relationship between historical layers, between the old and the new. But, first of all, the city reflects the essence of this society, which is clearly expressed, for example, in the contrasting environment of Tallinn during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. In this city, which I visited recently, we see two completely different systems and two types of people's attitude to the system.

The same can be said for London, which has historically been a commercial city with relatively little influence from city governments. During the Middle Ages, London became home to many Italian and German bankers who lent money to the king and thus enjoyed some kind of power. This is how the relationship between the authorities and the city was formed, which was reflected in the architectural and urban character of London and, in general, became part of its DNA. This can be seen in the current structure of the city, in particular, in the pragmatic system of its planning, which is under pressure from business and follows particular arguments for specific cases rather than a general urban planning concept.

This system contrasts with the planning system of many European cities, including Moscow, where the authorities - be it the tsarist or the party government in Soviet times - created whole-planned urban planning structures - avenues, squares, monuments, etc. In London, it is different, this idea has never seemed convenient to us: we have practically no uniform layout, except around Buckingham Palace and Regent Street.

zooming
zooming
Панорама Лондона © CPAT / Hayes Davidson / Jason Hawkes. Изображение предоставлено NLA
Панорама Лондона © CPAT / Hayes Davidson / Jason Hawkes. Изображение предоставлено NLA
zooming
zooming

What is the reason for this specificity of the development of London?

- The influence of society has historically always been great, we are a very democratic country, and if you look at history, you can take the DNA of the development of our city. History is what you need to rely on when creating the future, history is the foundation that gives you confidence when you need to make decisions - how to successfully bring the modern layer into the historical context. For example, in 1666, after the Great Fire, the king, with the help of Christopher Wren, very quickly, in ten days, developed a new plan for London with wide avenues, squares, monuments and others, which was a typical European plan - like Rome, Paris, Berlin. But the merchants did not want to wait ten years for this plan to come true, and they themselves began to rebuild their houses in the old places according to the old plan - with some improvements, of course, such as wider streets, the use of bricks, etc. They practically recreated the burned down medieval city in stone according to the same system that existed before the fire.

Another example: the layout of the city before the Renaissance was greatly influenced by topography, with borders between fields and farms, or roads laid by the Romans - all these layers have survived or left their mark on the city's planning system. London reflects history in a literal, physical sense. Even after World War II, when entire sections of the city were practically swept away by bombing, they were rebuilt again on the basis of the old plan, which was created in the Middle Ages, in the XIV-XV centuries. Thus, we now have such a strange situation in modern London, which is a world financial and technological center, where international business of the 21st century with digital media, communication systems and computers operates on the basis of the medieval layer. We have buildings of 30-40 floors, which are built into the medieval planning system, which was foreseen for 3 - 4-storey buildings. And, despite the fact that in London over the past 25 years about 60% of the historical fabric of the city has been rescheduled, there is still an influence, a sense of the historical system.

Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 3 часа дня. Современное состояние © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 3 часа дня. Современное состояние © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
zooming
zooming
Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 3 часа дня. Коллаж с рендерами ныне строящихся или запланированных высотных зданий © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 3 часа дня. Коллаж с рендерами ныне строящихся или запланированных высотных зданий © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
zooming
zooming

Lately, many architectural events have been held in England - exhibitions, debates, presentations, which are devoted to the study of the relationship between the historical and modern layers of London. Why is there so much talk about this and why now? Is this a special moment in London history?

- This is a special moment in the sense that we expect a large increase in the city's population, which today is 3 million, but may grow to 10 million by 2030. In this regard, there is a need to densify the infrastructure of the city center, and this densification is in some sense a requirement of urban development strategies, since densely built-up cities are more resource-efficient (sustainable) than more freely built-up ones. Concentration is resource efficient. The London development plan is based on the idea: the development of London's infrastructure should go within the boundaries of its territory. And this invariably leads to a conflict between the existing development, the need for development, the desires of local residents who may be against changes, and the need to provide citizens with housing. So yes, now is a special moment, as all these skyscrapers and high-rise buildings that are being built and will be built in the future will change the face of London in a way that has probably not happened since the construction of St. Paul's Cathedral.

How is the NLA dealing with this problem and what is the goal of the London Growing Up project? Do you plan to give any specific recommendations based on the results of your research, or is your intention simply to identify the problem and present the situation to the public?

- Our task is to involve the public in the discussion about the development of London. We have a fairly open system for regulating the development and planning of London, but it does not facilitate intensive discussion. Meanwhile, few people - including us before this study - are aware of the pace of the construction of high-rise buildings now underway and their number. And we were concerned that London's governing system (ie city government) was not strong enough to deal with the enormous pressures that London and other “global” cities are facing today. The reason for this pressure is, firstly, the huge money that comes here from all over the world and who need a "house" for investment, which is why the value of land is growing. This is a lack of land, there are overseas buyers who want a good view of London, and therefore they like the idea of high-rise buildings; it is a tax system, the essence of which is that local authorities make a profit during the construction of infrastructure facilities. So all these pressures in the city are driving the radical changes we are bringing to the table to help London Mayor Boris Johnson find the best solution.

Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 10 часов вечера. Современное состояние © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 10 часов вечера. Современное состояние © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
zooming
zooming
Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 10 часов вечера. Коллаж с рендерами ныне строящихся или запланированных высотных зданий © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
Вид от моста Ватерлоо на север в 10 часов вечера. Коллаж с рендерами ныне строящихся или запланированных высотных зданий © Hayes Davidson. Изображение предоставлено NLA
zooming
zooming

Is it possible to satisfy all these needs with low-rise buildings, which will bring fewer changes to the city's appearance?

- Yes, you can. In a town-planning sense, of course, it is possible. But the problem is that in many cases, expensive plots of land have many different owners who want to get the most out of them. During the Conservative era, we had a very socially oriented land administration system. Then the state acquired land in order to build them up more holistically and purposefully. We no longer do this, and as a result, development is carried out on the basis of many laws that make the combined development of all sites almost impossible. So high-rise construction is a clear reflection of the value of land.

By what parameters should the quality of high-rise buildings under construction be assessed?

- There is a certain randomness in the building and development of London, which is reflected in the silhouette of the city. We need to provide a reliable system in which each new project will be implemented in the right place, in compliance with all rules and conditions. For example, where new development could affect the views of St. Paul or the Houses of Parliament, it is not allowed to build. But there are parts of London that provide excellent opportunities for new construction. What we can do for the sake of better development of our city is to gather an independent group of professionals who will give recommendations to the mayor on the quality of projects - on their architectural quality, the nature of materials, on the ratio of new buildings to each other, on how they are connected to each other. with a friend at ground level, etc. This is what we advise the mayor, but I'm not sure he agrees with our proposal yet. He believes that this will lead to an increase in bureaucracy and slow down the implementation of projects. We believe that this will help to implement these projects in the best quality. He is also interested in creating a detailed 3D model of London, which will show all under construction and planned high-rise buildings, which will help to better assess their impact on city views.

How will this impact be assessed? What can be considered a positive or negative influence, how to assess the aesthetic impact of these buildings on the views of London?

- I think that it is necessary to gather this group of intelligent people who will give a balanced, reasoned opinion on each of the projects. When people ask me how to create good architecture, my answer is: Hire a good architect. Many buildings were built in the past, such as some brutalist buildings that were once considered highly controversial structures, but built by good architects have survived to this day as examples of quality architecture - although their public perception is still ambiguous. You can say “I don’t like this building, it’s not to my taste,” but at the same time be aware of its quality. For example, some good architects build buildings in the neoclassical style, which, in my opinion, is the wrong approach in modern architecture, but at the same time I can tell which is good and which is bad. We don't have a problem of style now, we have to think about the quality of architecture.

That is, the question is in the choice of the architectural language, rather than the style?

- It is not so much the language that is important as the very quality of the architecture. This includes issues such as the relationship of the building to the surrounding buildings - historical or modern. These are technical issues, issues of resource efficiency and longevity, flexibility and the ability to adapt to new requirements.

Is it important to consider issues such as the emotional impact of high-rise buildings? These huge buildings with a monotonous, often deaf exterior - how can they be perceived by a person?

- This, again, is a question of the quality of architecture - at the level of details.

And how to assess the quality of the "relationship" of new buildings with historical buildings?

- The city must live. Let me give you the example of Paris, where a big problem arose because the entire central historical part of the city was preserved there unchanged. Paris is dying, he is not living. The same can be said about Tallinn: the medieval center has been preserved there - very beautiful and cute, but it is intended for tourists, and all modern life takes place outside the city center. These are non-living museums. In London, we want to see a living museum. London is a modern museum!

Recommended: